## Facts

- L.M.E. (born 1968) was married to D.L.E. when she gave birth to B.M.E. in 1989; the husband was listed as the father on the birth certificate.
- In 2000, blood tests established D.L.E. was not B.M.E.’s biological father.
- In 2001, a New York hearing examiner entered an order of filiation adjudicating A.R.S. (born 1974) as the biological father after A.R.S., represented by counsel, admitted paternity; the examiner declined to set support based on A.R.S.’s submission to Michigan jurisdiction for support.
- The Macomb County prosecutor, on behalf of L.M.E. and the Family Independence Agency (FIA), petitioned a Michigan trial court to enter a child-support order against A.R.S.
- A.R.S. objected, asserting that (1) the child was conceived through criminal sexual conduct committed against him when he was fourteen and L.M.E. was an adult, (2) the child was conceived and born during L.M.E.’s marriage, (3) he lacked knowledge of the child until the proceedings, and (4) support would allow L.M.E. to “profit” from misconduct.
- The Michigan trial court concluded B.M.E. was a “child born out of wedlock” under the Paternity Act but denied support and dismissed the case with prejudice, reasoning that conception resulted from the mother’s criminal conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether a Michigan court may refuse to order child support from an acknowledged biological father because the child was conceived through the mother’s alleged criminal sexual conduct against the father when he was a minor.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed.
- The court held the trial court erred by denying child support on the ground that the father was technically the victim of an uncharged act of criminal sexual conduct.
- The case was remanded for a hearing and entry of a child-support order.

## Legal Principles

- Child support exists to meet the child’s needs and is determined without regard to either parent’s fault.
- Once paternity is established under the Paternity Act, a biological parent’s support obligation applies absent a statutory exception.
- Alleged wrongdoing by one parent in the circumstances of conception does not bar the child’s right to receive support from the other parent.

## Conclusion

The court required entry of a child-support order because parental fault related to conception is not a lawful basis to deny support, which serves the child’s welfare rather than to reward or punish parents.


L.M.E. v. A.R.S., 261 Mich. App. 273, 680 N.W.2d 902 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)